Comments

This is a very ironic topic in a world full of nutritionists, health advisers, trainers, educational food programs and with funcitional foods, lactose- and glutenfree food, low fat and low carb diets, multivitamins etc.In a regular US supermarket you will find about thirty different types of milk. The only thing you won't find is regular milk from a happy cow. The same with all other foods.Instead trying to ban large sugary drinks (because people will then drink two small cups) the US and EU should finally stop subsidizing its agriculture so this ultra cheap nutrition on cost of peoples health isn't possible anymore. The cheaper the food the more the industry will process our food or find ways to tell us to eat some designer food to maintain its revenue.But now I hear from an economist that the government should institute a tax on processed foods! Now not only the agricultural sector get's his share of tax payers money, but the government should now impose a tax and also receive money - so people on the street will have to finance not only the agricultural sector for their food but also the government. In what kind of world do we actually live in? Without silly taxes on food and subsidies to the agricultural sector people could easily bear more expensive but better foods. And instead of such money transfer nonsense people should again learn to listetn to their body instead to politicians, economists and the food industry with its trainers ,advisers and doctors. Read more

A human should be free to choose, as long as his choice does not harm others. But in order to choose, one must be informed. A child knows nothing, therefore it depends on its parents and guardians for its development. In this light should not child obesity be considered child abuse? Parents are deliberately and consciously poisoning their own offspring, debilitating it. They might as well be breaking their legs. We don't allow that. What would we do with a parent that allows, say, a small child to feast on alcohol?

Stop now with all that economic engineering and tampering, subsidizing and taxing and transferring, in the end that only serves to benefit a multitude of self interested sectors of the economy and bureaucracy. Read more

Prof, on this one we both should agree. That the US government subsidizes agriculture products, suppresses their prices by channeling taxpayers' money to the agriculture sector, and erects barriers of all sorts shielding them from foreign competition in the expense of consumers. Read more

It is not clear to me why it is the government's responsibility to 'set parameters according to which food companies behave.' I can figure that out on my own, using the parameters I prefer, my own. Should there be charlatans, common law can take care of them. Read more

It is not clear to me why this is a 'government' problem. If people want to get fat, get sick, and die young, this seems like a personal choice. So long as I am not required by a benevolent government to do the same, or to pay for the consequences of other's choices, I am unconcerned.

This equally applies to all the other 'bads' Rogoff enumerates - alcohol, tobacco, gambling (why are recreational drugs missing from this list?). Perhaps some people are making the right choice when they engage in this 'addictive' behavior? Or does the Professor know so much more about me that he should be allowed to override my decisions, to my benefit?

[Certainly the government should not be subsidizing any businesses/industries/trade groups/substances in any way, why is that even debatable?] Read more

It is not clear to me why it is the government's responsibility to 'set parameters according to which food companies behave.' I can figure that out on my own, using the parameters I prefer, my own. Should there be charlatans, common law can take care of them. Read more

It's government responsibility because they set parameters according to which food companies [etc.] behave. They allow deceptive marketing, and can absolve themselves of responsablity for social costs.You should be very concerned I would say. Read more

. Dr. Rogoff is right to suggest a governmental role in encouraging healthy eating.

The challenge is how to do it well.

Merely taxing bad food just makes food more expensive.

Perhaps bad food should be taxed and used to subsidize good food?

Tax the soda and subsidize orange juice?

If you go to the super market, only about 10 percent of the food would be considered healthy. If we tax the soda and cookies and so forth, the funds raised should be used to lower the price of fresh fruit, fruit juice, vegetables, milk and so forth.

Implementing such a transfer might be too difficult. There would also be a backlash from processed food manufacturers.

Perhaps an incremental approach would be best. Start with soda. Tax it and use it the funds to subsidize milk, orange juice and grape juice. Ensure that those products are widely available in 12 ounce servings, both single and multi pack. Get that started, check the results, proceed from there..

For purposes of argument, if we assumed that 5 times as much soda is sold as the total quantity of milk, grape juice and orange juice, we could put a 1 cent per ounce tax on soda and have a 5 cent per ounce subsidy on milk, orange juice and grape juice.

It is far easier to sell a revenue neutral proposal that makes good food cheaper.

Excellent summary of an important topic. Some European countries reduce their universal VAT on food,but some like Denmark and Norway wack food at 25% with transfers for low income people. I've heard that Dutch health insurance companies reduce premiums for people who hit weight, blood pressure and other health targets. While I would also like a surcharge on the obese, probably the "discount" route is the only one possible in the "land of the free and fat." Read more

It sure does sound like something extremely rational but… what about government obesity? A lean and fit people should also deserve a lean and fit government. Taxes might be useful down the road but before that one should make sure the system does not tax in order to subsidize. I’m no expert but we often read about the role of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in fostering obesity, and that the government subsidizes the production of HFCS, by means of badly defined agricultural subsidies. Before any tax is levied I guess that should be completely clarified. Read more

If parents are voluntarily raising health risks for themselves and their children, then price that risk accordingly through health insurance premiums. Also, I understand that various government programs help finance fast food restaurants. That should stop. Read more

Thank you Professor Rogoff for a very well written, very well reasoned and very much needed article. Viewed from the public health angle, 18% obese children more than likely turning into 18% obese adults and seniors consuming most likely more than their 18% share of health and possibly other public services. Yes consumption taxes may be the least intrusive way for the government to urge behavior changes. Read more

isnt pretty obvious what causes obesity? Why do we need government intervention? For something that requires massive self-discipline has government ever been able to change human behavior? why would government regulation be no different than prohibition? Read more

On a personal note, the simple personal rule of never drinking anything with high fructose corn syrup in it was the most basic and significant step in bringing my diet into balance!

Some other ideas would be more phys ed. required in schools, subsidies to the vanity industry (to kill two birds with one stone, the government could purchase public service announcement full-page ads in Cosmo, etc), and last but not least, encouraging people to stop watching television and reading op-ed websites on the internet! :-) :-) :-) Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.